Discussion on:

Going up? Take an elevator ride to space

As a retired research worker, I applaud scientific research and the fantastic benefits of the space race, and, I think the Space Elevator will eventually work well.. But, the underlying motive of the space race (Ie. mineral exploitation) is just a taxpayer funded scheme to give incredible wealth to a very few people.
These schemes always add to our long-term debt - which means we demand that 99% of our children will also contribute to today's top 1%.
We are already passing so many bad legacies on to our children - like decimated oil reserves, decimated fish stocks, decimated top-soil, decimated wildlife species, decimated forests, pollution and rising oceans.
What an embarrassing legacy! - Imagine, at the reading of our will.. "To my children, I also bequeath my 20 trillion dollar debt!" (quote from the Vs20 Group)

Well, thank Reagan and the Bush family for that. It's more to do with corporate greed governing US policy than it is with technology research and development. Tech creates jobs; rogue bankers and their political minions destroy economies.

Blaming the US National Debt on one political party or another is just a cop out!

When Clinton left office, the National Debt was around 8 Trillion Dollars. It was around 7 trillion when he entered office. When Bush left Office, the National Debt was 10 Trillion Dollars. It is now around 15 Trillion Dollars, that means that 1/3 of the total National Debt has been run up under the current President.

But, The spending of the government is the domain of Congress. Most of the build up of Debt under Bush was in his last two years. That was under the Democrat dominated congress of Pelosi and Reid. This was also the makeup of congress during the first two years of the Obama Administration.

However, no Congress since the beginning of the great depression has had the discipline to pay off the debt. That includes both Democrat and Republican congresses over more than 80 years.

Sadly, the current memes in Washington is to just pass the problem on to later generations. That only works as long as you can still get people to buy the bonds. We are approaching the end of that road.

As Van Johnson observed in 'The Pied Piper of Hamlin', "For come what will or come what may, the day will come you have to pay...The Piper!"

That day will soon be here.

A) This story is OLD news and sounds as useless and impractical as it did five years ago.

B) Terrorist target?? Get back into your paranoid bubble, Ted. Why on Earth (pun intended) would they target this elevator, undoubtedly carrying a small number of people due to physical limitations, versus a plane/ train etc? They're trying to kill thousands, not dozens.

if I were a terrorist, I'd prefer destroying infrastructure worth $100,000,000,000 rather than a few worthless enemy civilians. The 9-11 terrorists were after the WTC towers. All those infidels killed were just a "bonus." (Before anyone yells at me: yes, I agree, that's really sick. Sadly, that was their belief.)

It would be intersting to see an engineering analysis to compare different methods of achieving orbit. I am sure it has been done and I have seen stories like this one that talks about the individual method, but have not seen a detailed comparison of the various methods.

For instance, using a system like Virgin Galactic that employs traditional jet propulsion on a lift vehicle to achieve a high altitude, then launching a chemical rocket to complete the distance to orbit.

How about using a system similar to a maglev train or a rail gun that would have a track system running up the side of a mountain and perhaps beyond using a guide tower that would use electric to power a magnetic propulsion drive that could be augmented by ram jet and chemical rockets after the vehicle exits the end of the track.

Either of these systems seem more achievable than the space elevator concept and both seem more efficient than a ground launch rocket system.

My guess is that we are closer to an anti-gravity generator than we are to a space elevator, but I would like to see it succeed if it will allow a greater exploration of space and will allow greater access for the development of space based technology systems such as GPS, and satellite communications.

What physics is there to base an anti-gravity generator on? The physics of the space elevator is well established; carbon nanotubes are strong enough. We just need to learn to make them long enough and bind them together. Will it be easy? No, but the physics allows it. What physics allows an anti-gravity generator?

THEY RUINED THEIR NUCLEAR REACTORS AND MILES OF OCCUPIED LAND AND LIED ABOUT IT TO THEIR PEOPLE AND THE USA. NOW THEY WANT TO GO TO SPACE. WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING OVER THERE.

What people seem to miss is that if Graphite Nano-tubes become a reality it will totally revolutionise the construction industry. Steel will simply be a material of the past. There is plenty of carbon about so we would look at the end of the metal era and eneter a totally new era, probably of fusion of digital with strength (graphene has extraordinary electrical properties as well as enormous strength).

Speaking as an Engineer, yes, this material would enable a lot of things. But, don't expect steel to dissapear. Wood is after all still with us.

Concrete gives excelent strength in compression. Concrete is weak in tension. Steel is strong in both tension and compression. Carbon nano tubes are strong in tension and weak in compression. Yes it will have uses, but the uses will be somewhat limited.

Cost will also be a factor.

First of all if we did come up with a material that could handle this sort of thing, what would be the cost of building it in the first place? Second yes it is probably a lot cheaper then Rockets but might have to look at the cost of building it verses a rocket. But i like the idea and it would be fun to ride in one someday. Thinking of new an innovative idea means we are thinking outside the box, and that is how we move forward.

Thanks
Just an opinion

It's a question of payback. You have to look at the total cost of building and launching the rockets for a given amount of conclusion. You also look at the cost of building and operating the total cost of the elevator. The elevator will have a much longer time to payback than the rockets, but it will only have to be built once. The rockets are not reusable (currently). Payback time is close to 20 years in studies I have seen.

currently, businesses want new construction to have a payback time of 14 years.

So, it's not a business case yet, but the case is improving. Every year it gets closer to being economical.

I only wish I would live long enough to take that elevator ride but before the elevator is built maybe we can span the oceans with nanotube arches that will carry cargo on trains powered with solar powered magnetic drive and ... International trade can become as efficient and fast as international communications has become. Oh the brave new world lay before us a paradise for the young to enjoy..No?